we look at it and see the something we would investigate and we have to send another memo back to nsa saying yes we are interested in investigating and give us information. when the cyberattacks were a substantial concern day in and day out this somewhat erred in

some procedure was frustrating in terms of getting information you may need. but nonetheless we have the protection and we have that walther that protects the surveillance. it's not what you would find in any other country. >> i spoke to a company who had been working closely with the fbi and as a result of the intel that they were gathering in the cyberworld they were able to basically figure out the $500 million had been siphoned off from various bank accounts across the globe. one of the things that this individual was siding was the cooperation there between a private company and in this case the fbi. is that how the fbi but is that how we go after the cybercriminals?

>> lets take the private sector the exchanges for instance. what we want to do is as we have done in other areas to go out and develop relationships with the security individuals in those particular exchanges are financial institutions so that they know who in the fbi has proficiency in this area and it named with a face in a face in the face with a name so if there is a breach and they know who to call and the fbi agents know what they are doing and know what evidence they will need for their log books and the like so develop that relationship in anticipation of the probability at some point in time that there would be much more of that. we also understand responsibility for disclosing to victims the fact that they have been breached or have by the

chinese. and did you know that the chinese or the russians were in your networks and the majority of them did not know that but it's our responsibility to do that. >> in terms of the fbi personnel that you have now is there much being done in terms of training them to understand technology? >> one of the priorities in the wake of september 11 was that yergin is asian being able to know understand and utilize the digital arena and in the wake of september 11 we also understood that the traditional hiring patterns lawyers and former military and law enforcement was inadequate around the world so we opened up the language and they wake of counterterrorism opened up to language and area specials and in the wake of the anthrax attacks we found we had

almost 1000 interviews to be done of persons who had in some way been utilizing it and we didn't have the, or the biologist ideology that interview so we hired chemists and biologists and the like. likewise the cyberarena and software. for a person from software firms and hardware firms and computer scientists. over the last 12 years we have been hiring in that arena but also we have a number of persons that at the top level of quality in terms of capabilities but just under it around the country. we have way over a thousand individuals around the country that are capable of doing these investigations. let me make one point when i say that. and that is we focus on protecting networks and the focus on the cyber aspect that we cannot forget that behind every cyberattack there is one

body sitting behind a keyboard and part of understanding and impressing this is identifying the persons who are responsible, indicting them in certain cases arresting them and convicting them as we have throughout the years. one of the problems in this area is you don't know at the outset of the intrusion whether it's a chinese, the russians organized crimes here or in russia or an 18-year-old sitting in the bedroom someplace who has the capability. >> can you say there is a particular part of this world where we are seeing the majority of cybercrime originate? >> i don't think i'd talk about it in gross terms. i would say on the one hand i divided into five sectors. the first is the anonymous and those individuals are tremendously capable but aren't as is fairly stealing information for stealing information sake but want to embarrass you in sacking of the criminals and the targets and

the like harriet thirdly you have the theft of intellectual property and the espionage and forth you have a the terrorists and potential use of cyberby terrorist and the military use of cyber. several years ago the russians and the tanks into georgia and knocked out george's command and control before they sent the tanks out. those are the five sectors of threats that we in the bureau would deal with. >> that's a lot. >> is but in order to be successful in addressing those threats you have to get behind the keyboard. is it somebody from anonymous or is it that russian actor out of rush-hour u.k.? >> can you identify that. >> yes but it takes a combination of investigative skills that we have traditionally had coupled with the use of this medium in the cyberarena. you can't dismiss the necessity of identifying the persons

identifying where the servers are identifying the building that person is in tracing the ip address to a particular building to a particular individual. >> lets go back to preventative measures again. it is i think target every retail ceo in every ceo's worst nightmare. i care member talking off record with some people that said in a look in some ways that could have been that there is no reason. now is we are going to see a little bit on target coming up and we have the business routine that did the investigation into the story. as it turned out there were actually a number of things that company could have, should have done to prevent what eventually happened. but you know it's 20/20 hindsight. it's easier to look back

after-the-fact. what is it that corporations especially corporations that are dealing with consumer information and you talked about it earlier, once you lose the trust of the consumer that's a hard thing to regain. what do we need to be doing to make sure that they don't become a target? >> we have to again think of the technology. you have an insider that's a threat so you have human resources. how do you identify that? how do you did monitor downloads of your information? whether the mobility and the vulnerability is in those networks and identified particularized tools to address those vulnerabilities. they may be far different than the vulnerabilities than company b. and then develop a structure and a strategy that identifies those

vulnerabilities and closes in on those and at the same time understand that it will reach a particular point in time and what is going to happen when you get the e-mail saying hey look you got a breach here. who we are going to turn to and is going to be in charge of orchestrating the various elements and corporations to make certain that you are addressing this? >> see to is a pretty important job. >> it is a very important job but it's also a specialized job. >> let a segue into inserts. we have talked about corporate america and their concerns. what about state concerns? we keep hearing about these cyberthreats. we have seen a huge improvement in technology that people are able to access. what is the danger for us? if you are still at the fbi

today what would be your concern for the country from a state perspective? >> there are a couple of cyber issues that rise to the forefront. actually probably three. this is in terms of enhanced capabilities of the cyber criminals. that is the use of a virus to wipe out information on hard drives. 2012 as i'm sure you are aware aramco the saudi arabian oil company was infected by a virus and wiped out 30,000 hard drives that's the first large-scale incident we have seen. anybody in this business is responsible for corporate security is concerned by what would happen. it's not just a service attack which is a problem. it's not infiltration of information. it's wiping out information that you may or may not have a backup for that could disrupt your

company and that is a problem. the second is the financial element. the ability to address the tax. financial and banks have been targets for substantial periods of time but if it increases in terms of the capabilities and the effect on information that's tremendously problematic. the last is the state of systems that run much of our industrial complexes and the fact that these systems were built at a time when the internet was open and we had very few precautions. it was difficult and expensive to tighten down the system to the point where you could. >> what does that mean? what could they do blacks. >> there have been displays on what can happen if you get into the computer system with a

couple of shifts and controls and have a water station blowup. the power grid is adversely affected. there was an attack on a power station in california several months ago and it was actually more of an on the ground firing of weapons at the power station but it's worrisome in the sense that someone undertakes and orchestrated attack on a power station. if you have sufficient skills maybe that would be a substantial threat to us. >> here we are talking about what corporate america needs to do better to prevent themselves from being in a bad situation. what is the country need to do better to prevent anything such as what you just described? >> on the one hand as i said

it's important for us to recognize that as we learn from september 11 we have to apply here and that is the best defense is sharing information. we did not share information before september 11. there were walls between the cia and if the eye. when keith alexander was charged with an essay janet napolitano and dhs made sure we understood the lanes of the road and how we could share information and understanding the strictures that you have in terms of sharing but on the other hand the success is going to be in large part dependent on finding ways to utilize talents and capabilities and intelligence of the private sector to address terrorism and the cyber arena. >> wac d.c. from this private-sector? at the same time as i talked about people are worried about

turning over information. >> there are models out there where in a particular area 60, 70, 80 corporations will come together to step up and exchange so you can exchange particular intelligence and transfer to the fbi so there are models out there that are just beginning to grow that would follow. the only other point i would make is you have to take into account if the american public wants to understand that no what information is going to the federal government and what that information is being used for. so it's important to have a transparency in terms of the architecture that was established for this information-sharing but you have to have information-sharing. >> a recent example eric schmitt and mark zuckerberg and hastings met with the president and they were voicing concern that basically the privacy of their users was being threatened by

all of this. so how do you reach that balance where you have ceos that say okay i'm willing to turn over this information because baby it's critical to our national security but that same time i need to protect my customer in all of this. >> well you don't turnover necessarily the personally identifiable information. what you do is you take the patterns that are established. you may see it as an isp. particular patterns are established and you can cordon off that information. it should not be turnover but their substantial information they can and should be turned over and it would be to to the detriment of the company because the company can put persons and places where it would establish this connect to the two ensure that company's information is

used appropriately. by the same token they get the benefit of the intelligence that comes back and they enable them to avert an attack. >> doesn't seem like we are there yet. it seems like there is this resistance. how do you work through that? >> there has to be something in it for them. that outweighs the downside to their perception of theft of intellectual property for identifying them as a preacher in advance of the time that they want to do it that you structure it in such a way that is beneficial to them and parts of the intelligence they get in by the same token they control the personnel and information that has put in this unified intelligence structure. >> so we will get there? >> we will get there and as the admiral said i just hope we get there without a catalyst along the way. >> is that something you worry about? >> yes.

>> i brought up that term earlier and it's a hard thing to think about because 3000 lives were lost on 9/11 but are their offense that you worry about that could happen from the cyber respective that would be catastrophic like that? >> the way of looking at the power grids and our infrastructure yes and financially it would cripple us if there was a substantial attack on wall street on the exchanges. it also could lead to a loss of lives to the extent that we can be, our command and control knocked out in afghanistan or iraq where we are at war and somebody is ahead of us in terms of intelligence and technology so they are able to eliminate command-and-control and leave us with our enemies moving against us. >> is a brave new world.

director mueller thank you very much for your time today. >> thank you. [applause] >> 2000 pounds of education. the kramers boast the squadron's pride. shot like a rabbit it arrived. averse from kipling in those dark words echo some of my own bitter memories. as i recall friends and comrades who were cut down in their prime by nothing more than a jug of modified fertilizer, a battery pac, two boards connected by a bent nail. good morning. i am peter dickson. i'm a marine combat veteran. i'm 31 years old and i've spent the better part of my last

decade at war against this nation's enemies and our asymmetric foes. like many in this room my wife wife -- my life in my life path was forever changed on 9/11 when terrorists armed with nothing more than box cutters took planes out of the clear blue sky and smash them into the seats of this country's economic and military seats of power. for myself i ended up commissioning into the marine corps, took a sniper platoon in an infantry platoon to war in afghanistan, served on the border between iraq and syria, worked against cartels in mexico and mass rape in the democratic republic of congo. executed special projects at the pentagon. but for this nation what made us

so vulnerable on that fateful september day was the same exact thing that i saw on the battlefield in iraq and afghanistan. it's a technical transformtransform ation that occurred in this country and swept through our private sector and up-ended our traditional ways of communicating and collaborating. that technical transformation largely swept by the u.s. government. so when an alert fbi agent noticed that men in florida were learning how to fly planes but didn't care too much on how to land them that went up a hierarchical chain of command, was given due attention and then went nowhere else. likewise we invaded afghanistan and then iraq. we were engaged against asymmetric enemies who bypass

our strengths and targeted our weaknesses. and the improvised explosive devices that they used devastated our forces on the ground. now to their enduring credit the u.s. military and intelligence community drastically transform themselves in the face of this new threat. groups like the joint explosive device defeat organization stood up gave authority outside of congress to make drastic changes in the way that lifesaving technology was prepared and delivered to the battlefield. organizations like the joint special operations camp under general mcchrystal transformed themselves into a network itself if best-of-breed technologists were sourced from places like silicon valley and advanced analytics and data process and transform how we found a

industry that our adversaries. now is this nation currently washes its hands of over a decade of war we find ourselves all too eager to dismantle the same innovative organizations that played such a critical role in bringing us back to the brink the problem is that there is a new crop of threats it is coming up. there's a new crop of bad or scary threats and while we have those of us that have paid a heavy price to learn lessons in counterinsurgency while we have struggled to retain them against those who believe that america will never again be involved in groundwork these new threats are gaining ground. the american system of global

economic prosperity is underwritten by our security and our international patronage and security guarantees. there are three revisionist nations that seek to roll back these guarantees push back our frontiers and carved out for themselves regions of dominance. these nations, china, russia and iran are using every lever under their power, military, intelligence, economic, criticaf hybrid warfare. and for these nations the most promising weapon in their arsenals is cyber. for them they see it as that arrow in their quiver to strike at america's achilles heel. i do believe in the possibility of a cyber 9/11.

i also believe in threats and cyber threats that are deeply tied to the geopolitical world in which we live. you can see that in russia and a modernized russia that swept across the grameen peninsula with the military tactical radios in uniforms and the conspicuous lack of drunkenness but more than that they executed a strategic surprise in the integrated tactical fiber operations with every element of their advanced. we can also see that on the strategic stage where if russia takes a page from the iranians books and as they continue which they will to carve out a sphere of dominance that they term the new russia the sanctions ever rise to match our rhetoric they

will hit back at us. we will hit back with cybercapabilities through the same type of hybrid adversaries on the military side. we see it with the green men operating in ukraine just iran and hezbollah where the chinese have -- those three nations all have hybrid permalink. groups nationalist hacker brigades to do much the same thing operating with the benefit of decentralized decision-making and deniability for the state but with access to sophisticated cyber state like capabilities. what is scary about the russians on this is there are hackers are the same guys that cut their teeth in criminal syndicates and if they are given the nod by the kremlin to break glass inside the financial systems that won't be the type of attack we saw the

iranians pursue. they will be much more effective and much more lethal. it's a feature of our american banks and financial institutions. a vespers is in the nations and cybertransform the battlefield moved to the tactical edge. our marines and soldiers must learn how to bring cyberoperations into everything that they do. both suppressing our own electronic and cyberfeatures while raising the enemies. that is going to mean three things i want to leave you with this three points. one, the same adversaries that are hitting our private sector today are the asymmetrical upper series that will be hitting our government tomorrow. in the government we cloak ourselves with clearances but it's us that should be knocking

down the door of the private sector taking their lessons learned and looking to adapt their technology especially when they are spending 50 times what we are on the same issues too. we can no longer rely on small schools that take years to produce cyber warriors. for this next generation of digital natives and i may be young. i'm 31 years old. i may be young so i'm considered a kid here but i'm considered an old man in silicon valley and among the marines that i served. for both entrepreneurs out there and the people in our military. they can understand why facebook has better facial recognition software than many of us have access to a national security or why powerpoint supplies or are needs of communication and

collaboration and why we haven't crafted levers to. i'm seeing a few smiles here as it should be kind of amusing but it's not amusing to the dod. we all know a moore cycle is 18 months. what they can understand is not they betrayed this country but they were able to. the third i want to leave you with is that the innovative organizations that were so effective in confronting the last asymmetric threats we face are the same organizations that are ready to confront these lies lies -- rising threats in the name of returning to the status quo we should be safeguarding replicating them. i think all of this is achievable if all of us who had our lives transformed by the horror of 9/11, we commit

ourselves and commit ourselves renewed to never returning to business as usual for while we may crave peace after all this war while we may crave peace are asymmetric adversaries are looking for that next exile in a dark file whether it be a jug of modified fertilizer whether it be a box cutter on a plane or whether it be a malicious code in the wrong place at the right time. thank you and sempre fi. [applause]

>> we wanted a building that was very accessible to the community. it needed to be able to incorporate it a future. you can't predict the future. pot him -- part of the problem with the old library that we were tapped out on his many computer wiring as we could put into the structure. one thing we liked about the

design is he combined different geometric features. we have the triangular main part of the building. we have around auditoriums that fits on the side of the building. a rectangular structure on the west side that we call the bar and then the crescent wall that hugs the library on the north and east side and all of these different geometric features are bridged together with skylights so light flows to the building at all levels and we have a total 360-degree view of our surroundings. >> i think it's vital for a community to have a library that brings people together in this particular space was geared in bringing the community together. it's an opportunity for people to remember that the things that hold the city together the

public safety officers, various departments in the library all work together. i like to think we have physically done that with our architecture. >> the senate environment subcommittee hearing panelist talked about how climate change will affect farms, fisheries and wildlife habitats. oregon senator jeff merkley chairs this two-hour hearing. a

i call this hearing of the green jobs and new economy subcommittee to order. just yesterday the president made a historic announcement moving forward with the proposal to tackle the single largest source of climate pollution in the united states coal fired power plants. this action could not have come too soon. what we're seeing already are real impacts of climate change, impacts that are being felt today, on the ground, it's no longer a conversation about hypothetical events or computer models, what might or might not

happen in the future, it's a conversation about the real costs to our natural resources in our rural communities and our economy right now. a few weeks ago the national climate assessment came out with the most up-to-date review of climate sense and particularly focused on the impacts we are already seeing across the united states. this report combines the expertise of dozens of the most preimminent scientists to conduct a comprehensive review of the scientific literature to illuminate the climb it impacts we're starting to see today and the kind we can expect to see in coming years. what was notable in that report is how much impact we are already seeing in sectors that are critical to our rural communities, and their economies, such as farming. fishing. forestry. and hunting. these impacts aren't always straightforward, as we'll hear from some of our witnesses today. climate change is one of many challenges facing these sectors. but it's playing an increasingly important role in making

existing challenges such as drought and disease even worse. the long-term trend towards warmer and shorter winters is allowing more insects like bark beetles to survive the cold causing massive tree dieouts and making forests more ses up theible to larger, more intense wildfires. for a state like oregon, where so much of our rural economy depends on the fiber and forest sector this trend is very troubling. the warmer shorter winters are also decreasing the amount of snow packs leaving less water for farmers to use during the growing season, in oregon snow melt is a critical component of irrigation waters and so little rain falls during the summer months. this year for example, klamath county in oregon has seen one of the worst droughts on record after record droughts in 2001, 2010, and 2013. demonstrating the devastation we can expect to see a severe and intense droughts become more common. the decrease in snow pack also means that our streams are

warmer and drier during the summer months which is impacting freshwater fishing. less snow melt and hotter summers are expected to contribute to a significant decline in salmon populations. our ocean fishermen have been dealing with the effects of climate change, too. warming oceans are causing fish to migrate and oceans are absorbing much of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. this causes the water to become more acidic which has had devastating impacts on northwest oyster farmers whose oyster seeds which are the baby oisters are dying in those more acidic waters. this is why we are holding the hearing today to hear directly from those who work in these sectors, and whose livelihoods depend on us taking strong action to prevent the impacts of climate change from getting worse. the witnesses we have invited here to testify are people who have firsthand experience working with farming fishing and forestry sectors. we also hear from two of our minority witnesses who will present their viewpoints as climate change skeptics.

finally i'd like to extend special gratitude to our colleagues, senator jon tester who is here to speak on this subject not only as a senator from a state impacted by climate change but as a farmer himself. we'll ask senator tester to speak as soon as the open statements are completed. from that i'll turn this over to ranking member senator wicker to give his opening remarks. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman for holding this hearing. i'll note it's our first hearing together in the subcommittee. i also want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. our first witness, and the panel that will follow. as we discuss the impact of climate on farming fishing forestry and hunting, we must not neglect the effects that draconian climate regulations would have on these industries. yesterday as part of the president's climate action plan epa administrator mccarthy announced a new set of rules to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. emissions from existing power

plants. these regulations would have little effect on the climate. but the rules would have a negative effect on the livelihood of all energy users, including farmers, forresters, and firermen who are the focus of today's hearing. the president's costly regulations mean that farmers who irrigate their crops by pump would face higher utility bills. forresters would pay more for electricity to turn their timber into building materials and paper. products that are essential to our economy. these industries already face a myriad of challenges in a difficult economic environment. but at what cost are we going to hurt these economic sectors in the pursuit of aggressive but dubious climate regulations? the costs to these industries are sure to go up. the benefits are not. farmers are said to be on the front line of climate change because they're most likely to be affected by altering weather patterns.

in a recent scientific, peer reviewed study, that examined u.s. crop producers' perceptions of climate change researchers found there is little belief among farmers that climate change will have a negative effect on crop yield. in fact in my home state of mississippi corn and coy bean yields are at record high levels. farmers have been managing their crops effectively, and adapting to variable climate conditions for generations and generations. this is nothing new. unfortunately these generation will have to cope with higher electricity cost because of questionable climate regulations. for farmers who properly manage their land, a changing climate is not the problem. but burdensome regulations that increase the cost of farm production are. america's forest s provide many ben fits and services to society including clean water, recriation, wildlife habitat and a variety of forest products. need we be reminded that carbon dioxide is required for

photosynthesis. the process by which the forests use sunlight to grow. plants tend to grow better under conditions of higher co-2 levels. scientists have dubbed these effect co-2 fertilization. the economic impact of our forests must not be overlooked. forestry in mississippi is a $14 billion industry, and supports more than 63,000 full and part-time jobs. healthy productive and well managed forests cover more than 60% of my home state. these healthy forests support industry that employs 25% of mississippi's manufacturing workforce. given the current depressed market, higher prices for electricity would only worsen industry problems for foresters, who properly manage their trees, changing climate is not the problem but onerous regulations that increase the cost of forestry production are. and i am struck mr. chairman and my fellow senators with increase

being number of academics willing to come forward and say yes on some of this conventional wisdom they are skeptics. i asked to put it to the record at this point mr. chairman a transcript of an interview yesterday afternoon, on wtop with dr. peter morrissey, university of maryland professor at the robert h. smith business school. >> without objection. >> and then let me just point out in the final minute, mr. chairman, professor morrissey says a lot of this, speaking of the president's new plan yesterday, is going to needlessly raise costs, but more importantly, much more importantly, the president's goal, the amount of carbon dioxide we will save china makes up with additional emissions in only 18 months. he goes on to point out and i quote, remember co-2 emissions is very different than smog. and the environmentalists right now want to confuse that issue,

saying you certainly don't want smog and asthma and things like that. co-2 emissions is about the greenhouse effect, and rising temperatures. asked about the thought that if the u.s. doesn't do something countries like china and indiana definitely won't, professor morrissey says, well we're already doing something. and china is not joining us. he says, and i quote, it's a fool's journey into the night to think that setting a good example will cause china to follow. the anchor says well we need to do something and professor morrissey says we are doing something, but the twrik is to do something that matters. that has an effect. the president is touting this as a solution and it is not. finally he concludes we're going to have to deal with the rising sea level, whether we do this or not. the question is, will we have an economy that can bear what will

be the truly large burden, much larger than this one, and so i thank you again, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. we should be creating jobs, and strengthening the economy. not hindering it. >> thank you. senator session. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the conversation is not over. good discussions need to be held. we need to ask ourselves what the true facts are, and we will do so. and our growing number of scientists are demonstrating the prophesy of many of the allegations that have been made as a result of warming temperatures, and climate change. and we simply have to be honest about that. our economy is exceedingly fragile. it's very fragile. the average median income for working americans today is $2,400 below what it was in

2007. we've got fewer people working today than we had in 2007. unemployment remains high. and we simply cannot regulate and impose costs on american industry to the extent to which they cannot compete in the world market, and damage our economy. only a healthy economy and free nations has the environment consistently improved. unhealthy economies, in totalitarian countries have the worst record by far of environmental issues. mr. chairman, mr. ashe will testify, i'm pleased in his written statement, at least, he did not repeat his previous statement before this committee that we're having more frequent and severe storms, flooding, droughts and wild fires. because that's not so. when i asked him about it he gave anecdotes. he submitted not one scientific

report to justify that statement when many scientific reports reject it. president obama has twice claimed that temperatures are rising faster than predicted. even over the last ten years he said. and, in fact, temperatures have flattened over the last 15 years, well below the average computer models for environmental expectations. all i'm saying is i don't know, maybe this is a temporary pause in some of the climate change that's been projected. maybe temperatures will rise again, but they're not rising like the experts predicted today. and we've got more scientists like dr. smith before us today that will puncture some of the irresponsible statements being made about forestry. mr. president i grew up in the country near reddenburg,

alabama. you understand the timber industry. i guess the saw mill at reddenburg was one of the classic big saw mills. i saw logs hauled in front of my house all the time. but all that land has been replanted. it's being managed exceedingly well today. farmers are and timber owners are managing better than ever scientifically. and each one of those trees, you know, as they grow they carbonize the atmosphere. a dead and dying tree emits once it dies, it emits carbon back into the atmosphere. so harvesting and making this wood, putting in this building for 100 years has reduced carbon in the atmosphere. wood and forests are one of the very best ways we can -- we can reduce co-2 in the atmosphere. it just is. so, i feel strongly about that. with regard to hunting and

wildlife, i behind my house is a little creek. i calculated one time must have been a year of my life in and around that creek, swimming in it, playing in it, fishing in it, and you go behind that creek, miles of just basically forest. but we saw very few dear and very few turkey. in alabama today, you get visit people in my area of the state and talk to friends, and you leave your home at night and they'll say watch out for the deer. deer are everywhere. they're eating people's gardens. they are almost a pest, because really i guess better management -- i don't know why. our turkey people hunting better, they're managing their lands better, and we have a clear, without doubt, increase in game in alabama today. and i think throughout the rest of the country. so we made a lot of progress. we need to continue to make progress. i look forward to hearing today

and have another hearing and judiciary involving the amending of the first amendment to limit people's ability to speak out in elections so i'm going to oppose that in a little bit. so thank you mr. chairman, i appreciate this good hearing. >> thank you, senator. senator inhofe? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have to tell you senator sessions my wife's upset because the deer are eating her begonias. you know my wife well enough to know if she's not happy, i'm not happy. so i've got a stake in this. first of all, i'm glad clay pope is here from oklahoma. i appreciate your coming. clay you and i have worked together with frank lucas on some of our small dam rehabilitation projects, and i look forward to hearing your testimony. although i've already read it, and won't be able to stay for it. that doesn't mean i don't love you anyway. all right. this is -- all we talk about

around here since he became chairman of this committee is trying to resurrect, trying to make people believe the world is coming to an end. this is the 31st, 31st hearing this committee's had, this committee i'm talking about the whole committee now, on global warming, since senator boxer came in as chairman, and with each one, the polling data has declined. i mean, it started off where it was number one or number two issue. the last gallup poll said it was number 14 out of 15. now i have to say that i know oklahoma's global warming regulations are no friend of farmers. it's interesting that this -- the title of this hearing is farming, fishing, forestry and hunting. well, farming, you come to oklahoma and talk to farmers and they'll tell you that this is a really a crisis that we're in the middle of right now considering all these regulations. in fact i'm going to quote tom buchanan president of the oklahoma farm bureau, he told me just yesterday this is his quote, they'll have a

devastating effect if these regulations go into effect on the farmers of rural oklahoma. it will be our number one concern and number one issue. that's the oklahoma farm bureau that is speaking. let me express my concern with the epa's just announced regulations for existing plants. and we understood on new plants that was a little bit different. that was very, very costly. but existing would even be more so. the figures that we have is that we require power plants around the country to reduce their greenhouse emissions by 30% to 2,000 five levels. now, we have done our own study for a long period of time going all the way back to right after kyoto was never submitted for ratification and found that the cost of that, and this comes from wharton school, m.i.t., comes from charles rivers associate is between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. that would be the largest tax increase in history. we know the chamber's come out with the amount of money it's

going to cost in jobs and all of that. now for decades the environmental left has pushed to enact, and again congress has rejected. now we've tried, we've had this before congress now, about 12 times, it has been rejected every single time. and each time by a larger margin. the first one was 2003. that was the mccain lieberman bill and then two years later it was rejected even by a larger -- a larger amount. so, it used to be the number one and now it's the number 14 concern, and it's a very large concern. so regardless the president is pushing this regulatory thing. we don't have to look any further than obama's model to come up with a conclusion. he talks about his green dream being the journey. you and i were just there not long ago senator sessions. that country is about three years ahead of us in coming through with all these regulations and continuing a war like our president obama has had since he's been in office.

and there -- their costs for electricity now has doubled since they started that program three years ago. doubled. it is now three times the cost per kill watt hour of what we have here in this country. we know american people know it will be expensive and is very alarming that we have to do this. you know, to stay within my time frame i'm going to have to submit the whole statement for the record. but i want to get, if this is true, if we're now in a spell, in a period of time 15 years where there's been no increase in temperature, and now saying that this might be the coldest year -- weather of the year, all that is a matter of record, then why is this all of a sudden surfaced as an issue. and i would say why it surfaced. there's a guy right here, his name is tom steyer, s-t-e-y-e-r, he has come out and

documented -- he's a multibillionaire, he's going to put $100 million in the legislative process to try to resurrect global warming as an issue. $50 million of this is his own money, and he'll raise the other 50. i can tell you right now it's not going to work. i know it's a lot of money, and this will be going to candidates who are going to be supporting global warming and all of that stuff. so we know that it's going to be -- it's going to have an impact. it is a lot of money but the people of america won't buy it, and i would say this, i've already made an announcement, mr. chairman, that -- and there's a possibility i could be chairing this committee again, that when these regulations are finalized, i'm going to offer a cra, congressional review act on each one of them because that's the only way that we can have people get on record, either supporting or rejecting this and i have a feeling that we're going to be able to stop it, in spite of -- by the way, this

article be put in the record at the conclusion of my opening statement. >> thank you. without objection, your time has expired. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> we're now going to hear from senator tester. delighted to have you with us today, both in your role as a u.s. senator and observer of facts on the ground in montana, and as a generational farmer. >> thank you, chairman merkley, and ranking member. i would like to say before i get into my prepared remarks, i don't know tom steyer from a bar of soap but i would be more than happy to work with anybody to put some transparency on the dark money that comes into this elections. and i know this isn't a hearing about elections and dark money. but if we want to save our democracy a think that's the first step. i think we could get to the bottom of a lot of this stuff that's going on as far as influence and political agenda here in washington, d.c. with that i want to thank -- >> as my name was used. this isn't dark. this is light. this is something everybody knows. it's out there in all the

publications. that means that much to some people. i just want to clarify that. >> then let's get rid of that and the dark money, too. mr. chairman, i would first of all appreciate -- appreciate you having me here today, along with ranking member wicker, feels like we should be on cross fire, roger, but we'll do it here. look, i'm not a lawyer, i'm not a scientist, i'm a u.s. senator, but more importantly i'm a farmer. the impacts of climate change are felt far and wide and i believe we need to take responsible steps to mitigate the impacts. what those steps are, some came out by the epa yesterday, some folks have some other ideas. i'm more than happy to listen to them. the epa released a proposal for reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants. they went with a state-based solution. i think that's smart. to our problems, and i will work to ensure this proposal works for montanans in my home state. i think refusing to act to

protect clean air and clean water is not a viable option. i think in the long term, and in the short term it's going to cost jobs and a way of life. as i said a minute ago i'm a third generation farmer. i farm in north central montana. i have seen the impacts of climate change firsthand. this does not mean i have people that farm the land. this means that i do it with my wife. we finish seeding two weeks ago last saturday. this piece of land was homesteaded by my grandfather and we have farmed it for the last 40 years, my wife and i. my folks, 35 years before that. and my grandparents 35 years before that. for the average american, particularly those of us from rural america the political conversation about climate change seems worlds away. for us, we have had warmer winters. we have had more extreme weather events. and there are already presenting new challenges for our way of life. do i say those statements because i read an article in some magazine? no.

i say it because this is what i have seen on the farm. let me give you an example. my dad farmed from 1943 to 1978 and never got a hailstorm that allowed him to collect more than his premium that he paid for that hail insurance. i've been hailed out four times in the last 35 years. and this month alone, the month -- i should say last month, we're in june now, in the month of may, we have seen severe hailstorms all over the state of montana, totally unregulated, totally out of character. these are storms that usually would hit in july or august. they're storms that break out windows in cars. they break fences. golf ball sized hail or bigger. and we've had them up in my neck of the woods just south of my place, to down in billings. 230 miles south of that. at the turn 1999/2000/2001 we've got a reservoir on the place my dad built in the late '40s, when

he dug it, it filled up with water. in '99, 2000, 2001 it dried up for the first time ever. if you take a look at what's going on as far as disaster assistance, and i appreciate some of the comments made by the senators on the roster, on how this could affect our timber industry -- i'm talking about the now epa regulations, how this could affect agriculture, in the last two years -- 20 years ago the forest service spent 13% of its budget on fighting fires and i can almost guarantee you that budget 20 years ago was a heck of a lot smaller than it is today and they spent 13% of it. now it's 40%. and they still have to transfer half a billion dollars to cover costs. we're going to spend more than $15 billion on hurricane sandy relief efforts alone. i cannot think of a time we've had a hurricane hit new york. but it did with san zi. i think today's hearing

appropriately focused on experiences of farmest, ranchers, foresters, men and women that they're going through. unfortunately the stories are often overlooked, underreported or not reported at all. as a nation i think we need to start paying attention because these experiences are important if we're going to have a debate here in washington, d.c. and we're going to listen. scientists tell us the climate change will bring shorter, warmer winters, and in montana i see it. when i was younger, frequent bone chilling winds whipped across the prairies, 30 below for two weeks at a time was not an exaggeration. now, it seems like if we have temperatures below zero, it is the exception. do you want me to cut it off now, by the way? has this been five minutes already? my god. >> sorry about that. time moves quickly but i think we'd like to hear from you. >> i apologize. i usually don't do this. but changes in the weather are forcing different ways to

operate our farm. and to be honest with you, it's -- it's more difficult to figure out how. we haven't had a gentle rain this month of may. may is our wettest month. i planted that we finished planting those crops two weeks ago, they're not going to come out of the ground until we get some moisture. this is pretty abnormal. we've had droughts before, but this is -- this is abnormal stuff. the end of bitter winters you think gosh it's less soil you're going to have to heat the house or propane or wood or whatever you're doing but the fact is those winters and the lack of cold winters has allowed a little beast called the saw fly to add up, if you don't deal with the saw fly by adding another operation to how you -- ahead of time it can take as much of the crop as a hailstorm would, three quarters of it quite easily. it's time sensitive. the dead trees many of which litter our national forests you go south of flathead lake our forests are dead. combining with the historic drought, and the wildfires,

season is longer, it's hotter, and it's rougher. and it costs more money to fight. these stories go down the list and i can just tell you that a couple years ago, we flew in to down around by billings, they were having record floods. the next year, same people whose houses were under water one year were being burn out the next. same land. i don't know what's going on. i don't know if the air's getting warmer. i don't know if we're just in a cycle. but i can tell you we can talk about all the things that need to be done here. we can talk about how it's going to impact farmers and ranchers and sportsmen and all that. but if we end up passing on a climate to our kids that doesn't allow our kids to move forward with an economy that helps support, i think we're making a huge mistake. now, last year we had a record

crop. i can tell you right now it's going to be a pretty open summer for me if we don't get some rain pretty damn quick. those kind of variations in weather farmers always talk about as being normal. but this is -- this is above anything that i have ever seen in my 57 years on this place. and by the way, i live within 100 miles of that place till i got this job. so that's where i have spent my entire life. and i have seen things happen in our climate that i have never, ever, ever seen before. maybe it's just happenstance. maybe it's just choice. maybe if we ignore it, it will go away. but i think that if we can put a man on the moon in ten years, we can certainly, going off of 2005 standards, reduce the amount of co-2 going into the air by 30% in 25 years. i don't think it's that much of

a stretch. is coal going away? i don't think so. not for awhile. by 2030, nearly a third of our energy will still be coal. and i don't think that's a bad thing. so, mr. chairman, i appreciate you having this hearing, ranking member wicker, you know that i have a tremendous respect for you and i appreciate contribution to this. i think we have a choice, as people who serve in the senate and the house. we can do nothing, or we can try to find solutions that help drive our economy forward and address issues of climate. if we do nothing, and we're wrong, think about that. just think about that. it means there's going to be a lot of hungry people. with that sobering thought, i will say thank you for the opportunity to testify. i very much appreciate it. i apologize i ran over. by damn near double. but such is life. ashe will have to cut his way

back. >> senator, thank you very much for your testimony. and giving this district, on-the-ground impression of these effects from hail to fires to new pests, to fewer, as you put it, bone-chilling winds. indeed the point of this hearing was to hear about effects on the ground and we're going to now have witnesses to take a look across america, really appreciate your giving your sense. thank you. i'd like to invite director dan ashe of the u.s. fish and wildlife service to join us. dan has had a long career in public service. prior to being director he served as services deputy director for policy. as a science adviser and as the chief of the national wildlife refuge system. mr. ashe spent 13 years as professional staff on the former committee on merchant marine and fisheries in the house of representatives. and earned his graduate degree

in marine affairs from the university of washington. he is here today to give us perspective on how we can expect to see climate change impacting our national resources, and our key to sustaining our fishing and hunting economies. it's terrific to have you. welcome. >> thank you chairman merkley. ranking member wicker. it's a privilege to be here before this subcommittee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today, really, and to have america's sportsmen and women. as americans we are extraordinarily blessed. among these blessings are the natural landscapes, and the healthy abundant native fish and wildlife that they support. and today, blessings are largely due to the leadership, and the foresight of yesterday's hunters and anglers, good people, and professional managers who found -- who found the will, and the ability to face the great

challenges of their day. it may have been a dust bowl in the 1930s, or pesticide use in the -- in the '50s and '60s. and wetlands destruction in the '70s and '80s. but these women and men found the will and the way to work with congress and others to address those challenges. do i'm really proud of my country and colleagues in public service. it was in 1990 i was a staff member, committee staff member in the house of representatives, worked with the house merchant marine and fisheries committee, the house science committee and others and this committee in the senate to enact the global climate change research program act. and then a few years ago we worked with our state colleagues and other partners to develop the national fish, wildlife and

plants adaptation strategy, and just recently we saw the most recent national climate assessment and then yesterday yesterday the epa proposing acceptable and effective regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and so i feel like our country finally has the information, and the wherewithal and it's finding the will to address this great challenge. and hunting and fish iing are vital components of the nation's economy especially in rural areas. in 2011 americans spent $145 billion on wildlife related recreation, nearly 1% of the nation's gross domestic product and the changing climate system is affecting hunters and anglers today. and it is darkening the prospect for hunters and anglers tomorrow. shorter winters and earlier springs are disrupting delegate

water fowl migrations that have evolved over ians. drought and water scarcity are increasing, jeopardizing populations of native fish and aquatic species in dozens of watersheds, rising water temperatures are reducing habitat and altering breeding and spawning opportunities for many species of fish, milder winters are increasing the prevalence of parasites and disease that can have decimating effects on big game, and forest habitat. while enabling invasive species to spread into new areas and displace native wildlife. in oregon and across the pacific northwest, climate change poses a major threat to salmon, a vital element of the region's economy and culture. a study published in 2013 concludes that coastal coho salmon, a federally listed species, faces a significant climate driven risk to future sustainability.

the scale and intensity of these current and future climate change impacts pose a serious threat to america's hunting and fishing traditions, and there turn to the benefits they provide to wildlife and people. faced by these threats the administration is taking significant steps to ensure forward thinking, and effective conservation of fish wildlife and plants, and their habitats. this includes strategic planning through the president's climate action plan, the national fish, wildlife and plant adaptation strategy as i mentioned before, which we developed in cooperation with our state colleagues, and tribal colleagues. our survival and quality of life as a species is inexorably linked to the health of ecosystems which provide clean air, clean water, food, shelter and employment for the world's human population. how and whether we choose to respond here and now will determine the kind of world we

leave to our descendants, including whether we pass them a world that has a place for the great traditions of angling and hunting that we are able to practice today. mr. chairman, i want to thank you and the subcommittee for holding this hearing, and calling attention to this important and pressing issue. >> thank you. we'll now have five minute periods for questions, comment, and just to summarize, what you're seeing from your expertise within the fish and wildlife service are effects on the ground right now. >> there's no doubt, senator, that we're seeing the effects of changing migration patterns in our water fowl. we're seeing changing -- increasing parasiteism and decreasing reproductive rates in big game species like moose in the southern extent of their

range. we're seeing rising water temperatures, which reduces the habitat quality and availability for cold water fishes. and so there's no doubt that we are seeing these impacts across the board. >> so let me just take a couple pieces out. let me start with the diseases related to big game. one of our senators from new hampshire was showing a picture recently of a moose with clumps on its back and pointed out that those big lumps, if you will, big black lumps were actually big infestations of ticks that wasn't warm enough -- that was not cold enough to kill them, and they were carrying them year round, and that this was resulting in both disease, and continuous loss of blood, if you will, to the ticks. and thus an impact on the moose populations. is that one of the most prominent examples of impact on big game or what else are we seeing? >> we're definitely seeing that so we have a refuge, in northern

minnesota. we've seen a 98% in the moose population at agacy refuge. we've seen a severe reduction in moose population throughout the state of minnesota. they're no longer hunting moose in minnesota. the reason is because the rising average temperature in the summertime places physiological stress on the animal so they're not reproducing the way that they used to. plus, we're seeing that these pests, like ticks in new hampshire, which are able to have multiple generations now during the spring, the summer, the fall, and fewer of them are being killed off by severe winters, and so the animals are besieged by pests, which put further physiological stress on the animals. and so, throughout the southern range of moose, we're seeing

declines in the population. so in states like new hampshire, decline in the population. that represents a lost opportunity for the american sportsman. >> so when you said 98% loss, 49 out of 50 moose that were there before are gone, that's pretty dramatic collapse. is that over just a few years? and if we seen that in earlier periods of just a -- a mean a few years of variation in temperatures that the moose population crashed and then resurged? we ever see anything like this before? >> we've not seen anything like this before, and we've always had, you know, warm spells where you would have a summer or two consecutively where you would then have a depression in the population. they would rebound then, as weather returned to a normal pattern. but what we're seeing now is that steadily rising temperature in the summertime so that the mean temperature in the summer is now putting physiological stress on the animals which is

affecting their reproduction. >> let me turn to your comments about migration patterns for water fowl and specifically ducks. what is causing the ducks to modify their direction? are the pools they would land in disappearing? what's going on? >> migratory birds like water fowl have a delicate and refined migration pattern that has evolved over ians, so what we're seeing, put yourself in the -- look at it from the perspective of a hand mallard who's leaving her wintering grounds in yazoo national wildlife refuge in mississippi and is heading toward the american prairie. she is stopping along the way, feeding and resting. she has a very narrow window when she gets to the prairies, she's looking for a place to small a pothole or wetland to

make a nest. in rehistoric times if that didn't exist in south dakota, she would go to north dakota and then she would go to saskatchewan and she would fly until she found that habitat. what we're doing is human development, we're constraining the habitat. so we have agricultural development. we have oil and gas. energy development, that's constraining that -- her availability of habitat, so now she's much more restricted in terms of where she can go. so she -- if she doesn't make that decision in about a two-week window of time, she's not going to have a successful nesting season. and so, what we're seeing is birds are leaving later. they're migrating later in the spring, they're migrating -- or earlier in the spring they're migrating later in the fall. so they're -- their basic

pattern is changing because of their response to weather, we believe. and then the habitat availability for her is shrinking. and the what the climate assessment tells us is that wet areas will get wetter and dry areas will get drier, and so as wildlife managers we're now looking at a more complicated picture. how do we put that -- that habitat on the ground for that hen mallrd and what we have to do is be able to look into the future because we're not just responsible for today's water fowl hunters we're responsible for tomorrow's water fowl hunters. we have to be able to think about habitat 10 and 20 and 30 years from now. so we need to recognize that the climate is changing, that that -- the habitat needs of water fowl are going to change. their migratory patterns are going to change. we need to understand that better so that we can provide the opportunity for hunters in the future. >> thank you very much for your testimony. appreciate it.

>> thank you mr. chairman. in absentia thank you for mr. tester to come in. we do appear occasionally on cross fire and enjoy trying to match wits. i'm sorry senator tester is experiencing hailstorms, increased hailstorms. i think he made a very telling statement, though, when he said i don't know what's going on. i'm not sure what's going on. but i know that scientists of goodwill disagree about what's going on. and i would say to you, dr. ashe, and mr. chairman, gail and i have lived on 521 magnolia

drive, tupelo, mississippi, for over 32 years. the lady that built the house before us planted st. augustine grass over 50 years ago. and for the first time this winter i experienced winter kill of my st. augustine grass. now, i don't know what's going on. but the fact of the matter is i can play anecdotes all day, i'll just say that if somehow the cold and the ice, and the winter got to my st. augustine hasn't happened in 50 years. on magnolia drive. i don't know what that proves. except that we can give anecdotes that don't have really much to do with science. let's talk about these the migration of the ducks.

mr. ashe. it's my understanding that because of the increased demand for corn used in ethanol production we're seeing a reduction of available breeding grounds in the midwest wetlands, and grassland for ducks in mississippi and louisiana flyways. so don't you think there is an impact caused by the renewable fuel standards on hunting and hunting species and don't you think this is an unforeseen consequence of congress interjecting itself into the markets? >> senator, thank you. i would say we are seeing what ducks unlimited and others are calling a crisis in the prairies. we certainly if you think about

the states of north dakota and south dakota, which are really the heart of water fowl production for the united states of america, we have energy development in the oil fields squeezing from the west and we have agricultural development squeezing from the east, and so there is no doubt that we are seeing widespread and unprecedented conversion of habitat that is -- >> and if i can interject, because that clock is ticking. part of that reduction in habitat is putting more of the land into corn to -- to respond to this public policy decision that the federal government has made. that is a fact, is it not? >> certainly a part of the demand is related to use for ethanol. but the market is a global market for corn and soybean, and the global market is what is driving the demand for that

commodity. what's important for us to realize is that climate change lies over that. so as we are trying to maintain and now restore, and protect habitat for migrating water fowl we have the increasing complexity associated with changing climate, and the disruption of their migratory behavior. and so if you think again about that hen evolved to tolerate, and the prospect now is for temperatures to rise throughout the end of the century. from a thermo dynamic standpoint, she not only has to make that trip with habitat,

migration is a strenuous and risky endeavor for any species. and now, we're increasing the stress on that animal to make that trip. she's got to make it every year. she's got a tight time schedule. she has demanding food and energy requirements and we are making that journey harder for her. >> i realize, mr. director, this is not a climate issue, but i'm merely trying to point out that you're concerned about the migration of ducks as am i, as are people in mississippi, particularly along the river counties and delta counties. i would submit to you there is a lot more to it than increasing of temperatures by one degree or 1.5 degrees. i'm going to want to take a

second round many. >> thank you. why don't you take your second five minutes. >> okay. let me ask you this, mr. director. do you dismiss all together the scientific evidence senator sessions mentioned this morning that global temperatures have flatlined for the last 15 years? do you dismiss that as being inaccurate? >> i do, sir. >> we just have -- you have a disagreement with the scientists who have flatly stated that we basically have flatlined -- >> there is no scientific disagreement. if what people are doing is they're taking 1998, which was a high year for temperature, and

then they're looking from 1998 to 2013 and they are saying there is no rise in temperature. you can't look at attempt record that does go up and down, and so you'll have warm years, relatively warmer and cooler years. you can't pick one year out of 150 year data base and say, well, if i use 1995, which was a particularly warm year, and i compare all the succeeding years to that, there has been no increase in temperature. if you look at the complete temperature decade, there is no doubt temperatures have risen in the last decade. the last decade is the warmest decade on record. when you look objectively and completely at the scientific record, there is no disagreement. the national climate assessment reflects that science, that

large consensus body of science. >> do you acknowledge that the earth's climate has been changing up and down for tens of thousands of years? s. >> millions of years. >> millions of years. okay. and that has been irrespective of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere, is that correct? >> carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has changed over time, and has been correlated with by looking at the carbon dating record has been correlated with increasing and decreasing temperatures. what we are seeing now, and which science clearly points to is that human-based emissions of greenhouse gasses are driving concentrations in the atmosphere that have not been seen for hundreds of thousands of years. >> are you suggesting that every

time over the last million years the temperature has gone up, it's due to carbon dioxide? >> i can't say every time but what scientists have been looking back into paleotologic record, they've been associated with elevated and decreased levels of carbon dioxide in the eats fear. >> let me ask you about forest management. you won't be here during panel two. dr. david south in his prepared testimony says policy makers who halt and kill green harvesting jobs in favor of a hands-off approach contribute to the buildup of fuels in the forest.

this eventually increases the risk of catastrophic wildfires. also james wood on panel two will say because of past management of fire suppression, the worst neighbor a timberland owner can have is a national forest. how would you respond to that? basically in a nutshell, the argument is by refusing to allow the underbrush, there is this buildup of fuels and this intensifies forest fires. how do you respond to that? do they have a point? >> i would not say, and u.s. forest service is a poor neighbor. i don't think they have a point about that. i would say that the buildup of fuels in our nation's forest, public and private, has been a

challenge for us. whether it's national forest, national wildlife refuge, national park, state park or state wildlife management area, fire management is a challenge for any land manager. i would say the greatest need in that regard is funding for preve preve preventative management. it gives us more flexibility to do what you're calling for is to do prohibitive management of our nation's forests. >> that would be removing the fallen trees and underbrush that amounts to fuel for forest fires? >> in some cases. as a wildlife manager, sometimes dead fall and understory is a good thing for wildlife

management, but in some cases, managing forests, as senator merkley knows in the pacific northwest, we are working together with our state and federal colleagues on ecological forestry which involves many of the principles you're speaking of, which is get in, do thinning, do understory management. i think good, improved forest management is an important aspect of wildlife management and providing the habitat our game species are going to need in the future. i agree with you that that is an important adaptation for us to take. and we need better capacity to do that in knowing what we now know about climate change and what the future is going to look like. >> the chair agreed into indulge me on one other question.

there is a strategic plan to responding to climate change that includes increased data collection, initiatives to increase awareness and habitat conservation programs. how much money and how many employees is this going to take? and will this negatively impact other fish and wildlife service programs? >> i'm not sure what strategy you're talking about, sir. >> let me ask you, does fish and wildlife service have a strategic plan for responding to climate change? >> we do have a climate change strategic plan, and as i mentioned before, one of the outgrowths of that plan is the national fish, wildlife and plants adaptation strategy. it identifies a number of common sense steps that we can take. >> my question is about the cost of this and whether employees

will be taken away from other programs and placed into this initiative? >> no. because they're basically synonymous with good management, as you have identified with forest management. what we need to do is we need to provide our managers, our federal and state and tribal managers with the tools they need to do better forest management, better range management with the scientific information they need. it will cost, it will take additional capacity to do this, but it needs to be done. >> where is that additional capacity going to come from? >> well, i think as the president has provided in specific context of fire management, as i said, the president has provided in this year's budget that 30% of the funds for suppression should come from the disaster funding ceiling. that will free up dollars for us to do more preventive management

for fire. i think we know, we have common sense approaches to find and build the capacity that you're talking about. i think the president has proposed one such step in his 2015 budget. >> thank you. i'll take my five-minute turn then. i would like to say that forest service plan makes a lot of sense because what we've had in the large fires has been complete depletion of the forest service and trying to restore the funds for every other function they have other than fighting fires. that's not treating emergencies as emergencies. and huge disruptive factor in the ordinary work force. that's a terrific proposal. i commend the forest service for it. you mention in your testimony some of the migrations that are occurring. specifically, you mention the pacific, i think it's called the brandt, and that it has migrated

a long -- its range changed dramatically. can you explain what's going on there? >> sure. pacific brandt is a small goose. pacific brandt have ranged their breeding grounds in the arctic and migrate historically cowan to mexico, winter in mexico, or summer in mexico. what we are seeing increasingly of brandt are staying in alaska throughout the breeding season. so what that creates is a potential that will have a disruption, will have a severe weather event and the birds will not have migrated and will take a big population reduction. these changes in migratory patterns put more uncertainty into the game for wildlife managers. so if we are facing more

uncertainty, the way we typically deal with that is we reduce opportunity. so i think that's the restriction that we are looking at. >> my impression is we are seeing this in studies of lots of species. some of my colleagues talked about the migrating lobster, so on and owe forth. so this is not just one particular -- lots of ocean species are things that are changing? >> across the board we are seeing changes in the blooming of flowers, the green-up in alaska tundra in the springtime. we are seeing changes in migratory patterns as we talked about. we are seeing changes in habitat availability for cold water fish. while one study in 2012 of cold water fish estimates that by 2100 we could see a reduction of 50% in habitat availability for cold water fishes, trout, salmon, a loss of as much as 6.5

million angler days, and as everyone as $6.5 billion in economic activity. so these changes are not inconsequential for sportsmen and women. >> thank you. i want to take a look at the chart on the surface temperature issue that was just raised. so this chart shows change in surface temperature from 1970 through 201. it basically shows that there's about a 0.6 degrees celsius change in just that 44-year period. one can draw kind of impressions about this, i have another chart here that has a line that simply represents kind of the rising direction of temperature, but i wanted to specifically emphasize the second chart which shows that rising temperature is a

series of steps. because a number of folks have commented and said, well look, this last bar is flat and it's flat over a period of approximately 10, 12 years. and therefore, nothing to worry about, but when you see this chart going backwards, we see a series of periods where the average temperature keeps increasing by steps, if you will. is there any reason to think that if we are looking at this chart ten years from now, that we will see a new step that is lower than the step we're at now? is there any reason to think no issue here, that this trend is not going to continue? >> i'm not aware of any scientific study that predicts a decline in temperature from this point forward. your observation as i was saying in response to senator wiccer's statement, you look at the

long-term temperature record, it's unequivocal temperatures are rising and the prediction is for temperatures to rise and the rate of temperature increase to rise in the future. >> thank you very much for your testimony. appreciate it very much. bringing the expertise of your agency to bear on these broad trends that we're experiencing. >> thank you, senator. >> mr. chairman, i wonder if there is any reason to believe that if we raise electricity rates on american farmers and ranchers by double digits that line is going to change one way or the other? >> is that something you want to speculate on? >> i think it's something i already speculated on. >> i will note looking at future

power costs, it anticipates a reduction. that's maybe for another hearing or another debate and discussion. let's turn to our second panel, if they could come forward. >> but then we will proceed with the testimony. our first witness jim we are delighted to have you here from morgan and for

producers as executive director of lake county resources initiative with a national force in the expanding use of the communities. of leader of forestry and clean energy to foster more collaborative approaches as working to make and attract more biomass and geothermal solar and wind energy projects. our second witness in service at the state association executive director of the conservation district block of. reserve residents is general colin as the commercia⌝ fisherman the scallop harvesting company based out

of pitchers a but does business on both coasts. david is a retired professor of forestry where he also earned his ph.d. in forestry also served as said director for the southern forest nursery management cooperative. and our final witness said joint associate professor of job of a and the former for climatic research at university of delaware. if you could kick off the testimony? the show is yours. >> thank you chairman and fellow members it is an honor to be here. eyebrow and a small nonprofit.

and tutus policies of the national for is. looking at renewable energy to bring new green jobs to the forefront. when discussing climate change i cannot separate factions of past forest management and impacts of climate change they are the same. and then to take the understory to take it back to a natural area that is also the strategy we need to use for climate change.

over the past decade what does that mean? the first fryer was the toolbox fire real lost 100,000 acres. then in 2012 we lost 92,000 acres and in less than we have lost 24 percent of the forest if we keep this rates up with the fires get more intense because of the warmer climate change. we will lose our whole forest in three decades and that is really a severe threat. not only a threat to our industry but to our true cultural district the

average 20 percent moisture during the of winter summers are hot and dry without the snowpack we don't have irrigation water all you have to do is work -- look to our neighbors and what will happen there? but the drowse we have never seen with the severity before. summit to debate the climate change i personally say the risk is way too high to ignore. i hope we don't go there in by using renewable energy i feel we can offset that with all of say economic analysis rule of said 93 percent of the fossil fuel emissions in one decade but does make go

for word i would hope we're looking at things like that that make economic sense. kennett compete with other forms of coal? solar is there with his there and as we invested ways to be more competitive but other rates throughout the country. i asked him used to change the definition of the renewable energy biomass. it is not considered a renewable energy source. really have supply for one so hopefully one of those will make it. with that definition they

don't want to invest because they do not consider the renewable. please change that. so get that passed so we changed the definition. the other thing never like to say we need to increase the scale of treatments. my whole testimony about the of worst neighbors it is not because we don't know what to do with the amount we get them done greedy to increase that wayne and that is overstocked treating 20,000 acres per year than we get to 100,000 acres not just small acres are projects at a time. we don't want to do anything like that but ecologically sound. as we move on i hope you

look at the fire spending we cannot get ahead of this or achieve our goals if we don't deal with what occurs every year as the fires get more intense and hotter we need to look at that. it is barred cheaper to treat the land and suppress the fire. the other thing that climate change has done we get large amounts of evaporation. but by doing common-sense things today but after that let's debate the more challenging stuff. thank you. >> thank-you purpleheart.

>> thank-you for the chance to come before you today with the challenges of the southern plains. we always had while whether will rogers said if you like the weather in oklahoma wait a minute. what's different is the frequency and strength. our crazy weather on steroids. the drought is the perfect example and had drastic impact on agriculture. of oklahoma load the reduction of cattle herd of 10% the cattle inventory has been to lowe's levels and said to 51 and over 80 percent have been in two states oklahoma and texas. the effects are not just limited to livestock. we may be looking at the fourth year in a row where 50 percent of cotton8)t abandoned and the real story that this is the lowest since 57 of a harvest.

but this production is not just due to the drought. late-season freeze also took its toll. that is not do about what is new is the frequency. this is the third time in five years it has impacted the wheat crop. we have a problem clearly but what do we do about it? but my opinion is the soil to improve the soil help to mitigate and adapt to climate change is to between 60 and 80 percent of the organic matter initially because it feeds the microbe community under this sow will that is the best line of defense against climate change. it can triple above water retention that is an additional 25,000 gallons of

water it also incorporates to increase the infiltration rage while reducing the amount of moisture loss due to evaporation and. and that the drought's are exacerbated by climate change will get a more moisture but then it and turn it makes more water available for dividend wildlife in reduce soil erosion and run off. for texas oil and reduces pollution in streams and rivers. that saved 1 percent organic matter can make available up to $70 of new schuster shall nutrients nutrients become plans more effectively to help increase the yields end if we do this we will over carbon tax of levels. note till can sequester have the metric ton when he

restorer soil health raleigh-durham prove will increase yields at the same time this is the signal a to do then has the ability to help producers do it but as budgets tightened financial assistance continues to shrink. and to keep the farm ground and production. this partnership has the ability to address climate change if they have the necessary resources. but to determine what technologies icahn they started the process with the

formation and hold great promise if they're not provide it with the resources to do their job. but not lose sight also the flood of 1934 happened in the middle of the dust bowl of and is part the government to build some small watershed day of this. oklahoma as 2100 structures most need rehabilitation and many of these could be made into reservoirs with of passage of the bill unfortunately the rule states they can only be used to repair existing structures to the current size but that does not have to be the case. think and held several communities with water sources and with that original flood control act flood medication and wildlife enhancement it is

another tool to better adapt to climate change. i would reiterate we face some serious challenges but the good news is u.s. she has tools to cope. the question is will they take it? thank you. >> please turn on your record from step nine thank address the committee of climate change john and fire river the next generation. the agricultural industry of the united states especially selfish is susceptible to ocean in temperature and acidification like the canary in the coal mined for the shellfish industry has impacted it is a harbinger

of the consequences of human fossil fuels audience you to increases. i'm president of the atlantic keeps fisheries and today be operate the east coast and west coast facilities in new jersey jersey, maryland, rhode island and massachusetts and pacific northwest focus on scallops and clams and squid and is tantamount to a flight time is ever $1 million per your intention with the national fisheries service. about 50 years ago recognizing the commercial -- commercial fishermen with the assisted a ball cap to harvest on enough fish protein for a growing population with this seventh

billion and the industry looks more toward aquaculture's to right -- meets those rising needs. to use examples to they'd better not anecdotes but what has happened to the industry backed up with scientific research. i will do that with four examples that are really just examples and we can talk about others. these examples come from three sources:chançct over time with carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to raise the level of acidification and changes that subscribers to body temperature. so on the north carolina rhode island.

the fishery is centered off the coast of virginia up through new jersey it landed over 50 percent for the country and to reduce the number one ingredient of clam chowder that is the number one soup served in restaurants in the country. and as outlined with the bottom temperature rise so was body temperature changes cooler water is doing clint the clam plants from virginia and rhode island showing a shift in a population of the clams to tool temperature rise there

in the pacific northwest we see large ocean acidification documented over 100 ted million dollars and now they have to but for all the water the way to have a successful hatchery where they discovered the problem. in 2013 in british columbia 90 percent of all the scallops from offshore that my company sustained a deadly and dollar loss but to research this right now they believe the highest levels that were recorded last summer that are more susceptible. in terms of evidence in my testimony documented by an article released today by

the daily climate document saying work temperature changes in the east coast affecting the migration and distribution of the fishery because of good management practices but because of a distribution move slowly north there now fish off of new york therefore there is a user conflict with the state by state allocation and congressional -- commercial content i will conclude by saying that i believe it is irrefutable that climate change is happening and leaders of with myself have formed up companies specifically to new try to also adapt that we must take said agents of

change rather than victims of change. we will answer your questions. >> it is of privilege menino there are examples where the total size of wildfires. policy makers have active forest management and a contributing to use the buildup in the forest. this increases the risk of catastrophic wildfires to attribute this to carbon dioxide is not scientific. and in today's world accuracy does not seem to matter. i am not surprised to see them spread the idea that curbing emissions cause large wildfires.

there is the serenity prayer that states god grant me the serenity to except the things i cannot change than the courage to change the things i can and the boston to know the difference. now realize they cannot change the behavior of the media or the weather. early in my career i give trying to change the media to make them correct their mistakes about forest management but now i just concentrate on my colleagues to get them to stick to the facts. i will leave the future to others. untrue claims about the wildfire can spread. false statement of 2012 verge of nine-point to million acres decided founded more than 2,000

bedsides but you can see by looking at the graph of wildfires burned four times that rate. . .